A BOOKMAKER is adding insult to injury for one Sunderland fan, by refusing to honour his £1,450-winning cup final bet.

As if seeing his heroes lose to Manchester City at Wembley wasn’t bad enough, Dan Phyall now finds himself denied his pay-out for correctly predicting Black Cats forward Fabio Borini would score the first goal in Sunday’s Capital One Cup final.

William Hill is refusing to stump up the £1,450 Mr Phyall says is owed to him having offered him odds of 145-1 on his £10 stake.

It is thought the bookie in the Trafalgar Square betting shop where Mr Phyall placed the bet on Saturday night (March 1) may have mistakenly given odds on the scorecast for Borini to score first and Sunderland to win 1-0.

William Hill is offering to pay out at odds of 16-1, meaning Mr Phyall would get £160 – £1,290 less than he believes he is entitled to.

But the 20-year-old, who works in the family cafe Coffeea Cabana, Sunderland, repeatedly checked his bet before handing over his money and says William Hill should now pay out.

“I was just seeing what the odds were,” Mr Phyall said.

“I was a bit shocked. I asked if he was sure. He said yes, so I stuck a daft £10 on.

“When we scored, it was more the feeling that we scored – I didn’t realise about the bet until my cousin said: ‘You’ve won over a grand’.”

When the family tried to claim their winnings at the Sunderland branch on Monday, they were refused.

“I was expecting something to happen. It was good to be true,” Mr Phyall said.

But his father, Mick Phyall, is fighting the case.

Following talks with William Hill, he is taking it to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (Ibas) and is considering legal action if that doesn’t work.

A spokesman for William Hill said: “In situations like this where an obvious error is made, we will always settle at the best price available.”

On-loan Italian Borini put Gus Poyet’s team 1-0 up early on, before City turned on the class to run out 3-1 winners and deny the Black Cats their first major trophy in 41 years.

As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.

As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.cromwell1599

If IBAS rule in favour of Hills, as they will, Mr Phyall should seriously reconsider taking legal action, as on the evidence of this article he is guaranteed to lose. His son has already admitted that he thought it was too good to be true, if Hills thought that he knew he was getting a better price thanthe correct one it could be construed as attempted fraud.

If IBAS rule in favour of Hills, as they will, Mr Phyall should seriously reconsider taking legal action, as on the evidence of this article he is guaranteed to lose. His son has already admitted that he thought it was too good to be true, if Hills thought that he knew he was getting a better price thanthe correct one it could be construed as attempted fraud.cromwell1599

cromwell1599 wrote:
As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.

According to the story, he repeatedly checked and double checked the odds.

[quote][p][bold]cromwell1599[/bold] wrote:
As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.[/p][/quote]According to the story, he repeatedly checked and double checked the odds.christophano

cromwell1599 wrote:
As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.

According to the story, he repeatedly checked and double checked the odds.

Well whatever he "checked" was obviously not a first scorer price, even the goalkeeper would have been shorter odds than that to score, he has looked at a scorecast price and the bet has been erroneously accepted therefore it will be settled at the correct odds. I don't remember what Borini's first scorer odds were but as a striker he would have been about fourth or fifth favourite behind several Man City players so 16/1 sounds reasonable enough.

[quote][p][bold]christophano[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cromwell1599[/bold] wrote:
As unfair as it may seem all bookmakers have it in their rules that any prices taken in error are settled at the correct odds. The onus is on the punter to ensure that the price he is taking is correct, in this case 145/1 is too ridiculous to be true, the 18/1 settlement offer sounds generous enough. I can't help wondering whether this punter was aware he had got the wrong price in the first place.[/p][/quote]According to the story, he repeatedly checked and double checked the odds.[/p][/quote]Well whatever he "checked" was obviously not a first scorer price, even the goalkeeper would have been shorter odds than that to score, he has looked at a scorecast price and the bet has been erroneously accepted therefore it will be settled at the correct odds. I don't remember what Borini's first scorer odds were but as a striker he would have been about fourth or fifth favourite behind several Man City players so 16/1 sounds reasonable enough.cromwell1599

I dont really know a great deal about betting but surely if they accepted the bet they should honour it??

Is it not like ordering something online, receiving an incorrect item but having to accept it?

I dont really know a great deal about betting but surely if they accepted the bet they should honour it??
Is it not like ordering something online, receiving an incorrect item but having to accept it?studio

studio wrote:
I dont really know a great deal about betting but surely if they accepted the bet they should honour it??

Is it not like ordering something online, receiving an incorrect item but having to accept it?

It's not the same as ordering something and being sent the wrong item, as I have said previously all bookmakers have a rule protecting themselves against bets being taken in error, it's up to the punter to to know these rules. This person is lucky to be offered settlement at 16/1, they could have simply said that the bet was void and given him his tenner back.

[quote][p][bold]studio[/bold] wrote:
I dont really know a great deal about betting but surely if they accepted the bet they should honour it??
Is it not like ordering something online, receiving an incorrect item but having to accept it?[/p][/quote]It's not the same as ordering something and being sent the wrong item, as I have said previously all bookmakers have a rule protecting themselves against bets being taken in error, it's up to the punter to to know these rules. This person is lucky to be offered settlement at 16/1, they could have simply said that the bet was void and given him his tenner back.cromwell1599

Lancelot wrote:
The bad publicity will have cost them more than it would if they had paid up. It doesn't say much for their ethics.

Not really anything to do with ethics, the rules are there on the wall for all to see. I doubt whether the publicity will concern Hills unduly, these mistakes happen occasionally, especially at busy times. If they start paying out on occasions such as this it would give every Tom, Dick and Harry the green light to deliberately 'try it on', as some already do. It's unfortunate that this has happened, but it must have been obvious even to the most naieve punter that 145/1 was not the correct price for this bet.

[quote][p][bold]Lancelot[/bold] wrote:
The bad publicity will have cost them more than it would if they had paid up. It doesn't say much for their ethics.[/p][/quote]Not really anything to do with ethics, the rules are there on the wall for all to see. I doubt whether the publicity will concern Hills unduly, these mistakes happen occasionally, especially at busy times. If they start paying out on occasions such as this it would give every Tom, Dick and Harry the green light to deliberately 'try it on', as some already do. It's unfortunate that this has happened, but it must have been obvious even to the most naieve punter that 145/1 was not the correct price for this bet.cromwell1599

Darkroom Devil wrote:
What do they say about there only being one winner?
Keep your money in your pocket.

But this punter is a winner if only he would accept the £160 they are offering him !

[quote][p][bold]Darkroom Devil[/bold] wrote:
What do they say about there only being one winner?
Keep your money in your pocket.[/p][/quote]But this punter is a winner if only he would accept the £160 they are offering him !cromwell1599